We're $12.3 Trillion Poorer Than We Were Three Years Agohttp://www.businessinsider.com/household-net-worth-2010-9/comments
en-usWed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500Sun, 02 Aug 2015 15:13:57 -0400Calculated Riskhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/4cf737654bd7c8600b070000bunuunutmaThu, 02 Dec 2010 01:06:29 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4cf737654bd7c8600b070000
That cute little note about public liabilities not being included seems important in this particular case. The monster in DC is eating 5% of national wealth per year at the current rate, while income and wealth creation either have stagnated or are going down.
<a href="http://www.yuregininsesi.com">sesli sohbet</a> <a href="http://www.yuregininsesi.com">sesli chat</a> <a href="http://www.yuregininsesi.com/libidomcom-arkadaslik-libidom-chat.html">libidom</a>http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4ca070dd7f8b9a4234a40a00June LeeMon, 27 Sep 2010 06:24:29 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4ca070dd7f8b9a4234a40a00
Rajeev Rawat is right.
12 trillion could not have simply disappeared.
Who took the money???
Wall Street? Bankers?Corporate execs?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c96ee657f8b9ab575360100Rajeev RawatMon, 20 Sep 2010 01:17:25 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c96ee657f8b9ab575360100
Is the article accurate, credible or even complete? Are we really $13T poorer? Wrong!
Someone has that money. Who? Revealing who took that money will make a good article. When the securities (later found to be worthless) were sold to foreign investors, someone received that money. The investors paid good money before they learned that Moody's ratings of securities they had purchased were worthless.
The money was sucked-out off of the Main Streets of USA. But it did not evaporate. It made many financial gamblers millionaires hundreds of times over, and many billionaires multiple times. Where are the names of those who got the trillions? Those who made the billions or hundreds of millions were not law breakers, but were shrewd investors. They received a gift from the most crooked congressman Phil Gramm of Texas, who, with his wife Wendy Gramm enabled the slight of hand at Enron that consumed jobs, savings, and pensions, and later enabled the banking collapse.
Why aren't journalists connecting these dots? Which gamblers got the money, what role the taking down of regulations played? Who (which politicians) took down the regs? Whose interest were they (the politicians) serving? Where is the donation/campaign finance trail?
Another case of integrated journalistic jingoism and myopia. The main street and common-American lost trillions, yes. But many in the same America received that money. Who, how much, and how?
Now, revealing this will make a great journalistic showpiece. A read of the recent, The Big Short by Michael Lewis will be a good prep book to learn where to start, whom to contact, and what to research.
Rajeev Rawat
Sunnyvale, CAhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c96e1e37f8b9a305baa0300brian shellMon, 20 Sep 2010 00:24:03 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c96e1e37f8b9a305baa0300
Remember Reagan's 'trickle down economics' theory?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c96e1497f8b9af673cf0300spiffMon, 20 Sep 2010 00:21:28 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c96e1497f8b9af673cf0300
There is no argument the government creates boom and bust cycles, this last housing cycle is a very good example. The rich are now buying houses and the poor/middle class are in foreclosure or not buying out of fear. The rich are going to get richer again.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c96e0ff7f8b9a9b547d0500brian shellMon, 20 Sep 2010 00:20:15 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c96e0ff7f8b9a9b547d0500
After all the money spent and lives lost, now it seems the most effective way to hunt down A Q is with behind the scenes, low level pin point surgical actions. These, along with monies spent to reduce the desperate situations that foster blind terrorism should have been the wise reaction to 9-11, instead of the knee-jerk response of Bush and his father's advisors.
How much did A Q spend to fund the 9-11 action? Maybe 150K?
How much have we and the world lost forever in reaction? Maybe a trillion, not to mention the loss of lives?
We need leaders with more statesmanship and less school yard training.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c966f5e7f8b9aee32b40100kryptic the sheepSun, 19 Sep 2010 16:15:26 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c966f5e7f8b9aee32b40100
Kryptic, Obama here. Thanks for drinking the kool-aid. Keep blaming the GOP, bro.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c96626e7f8b9acc640e0100SootySun, 19 Sep 2010 15:20:13 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c96626e7f8b9acc640e0100
The tax cuts are being discussed right now because they are considered a possible stimulus to the economy. This is wrong thinking. There should not be talk of stimuluses as if they are the be-all and the end-all. If the heart is diseased and goes into cardiac arrest, you might shock the heart (stimulate the economy) into starting again, but you do not consider shocks to be mainstay therapy; electric shocks are only emergency therapy. You cannot keep the heart pumping by shocking it forever, you have to treat the underlying cause - you unblock the arteries etc. (you re-formulate the whole economic system). If you need stimuluses, it means the heart (the economy) is very very sick and the next heart attack (recession) could be a fatal one (complete economic collapse). However, no one is addressing the underlying chronic problems which are over-spending (war spending by the Republicans and "social justice" type of spending by the Democrats).
Without reducing spending drastically, and that means getting rid of the single parent's pension (the kids go to orphanages, the parents join the unemployment lines like every other adult), banning public service unions, reforming the political system, throwing out the (private) Federal Reserve and replacing it with a central bank overseen by elected officials - without all of these things as a bare minimum, you can cut taxes as much as you want - it won't change a SINGLE THING.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c9639ae7f8b9ae652d40000keepinitrealSun, 19 Sep 2010 12:26:22 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c9639ae7f8b9ae652d40000
Thought about saving canned food.I think it would be easier just to take it from the savers.Mad Max world is the New Normal.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c9631197f8b9aaf5cf80800Nancy "Senator Botox" PelosiSun, 19 Sep 2010 11:49:45 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c9631197f8b9aaf5cf80800
Speak for yourself. I'm hundreds of millions richer. Thanks for your taxes!
- Nancyhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c962e4e7f8b9ae15d370200Chuck DragisicSun, 19 Sep 2010 11:37:50 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c962e4e7f8b9ae15d370200
Hello, there will never be anything constructive done as long as the government is designed to spend money. Three office buildings being built for homeland security???? All budgeting being based on the previous year?? Why isn't there any 0 base line budgeting? Why is a federal employee guaranteed a job for life? This is real world stuff, it needs to visit Washington D.C..
I was told once as a joke that the budget might be reduced if we turned off the airconditioning at the capitol. I think that airconditioning needs to be turned off to the whole city.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c962dc17f8b9a1451df0100HAL9000Sun, 19 Sep 2010 11:35:29 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c962dc17f8b9a1451df0100
Thanks Doug
Another good reference you can look too is a film called Zietgeist. You can get it on Google too.
It explains how are Revalution was not about taxing TEA, but about taxing Money. Can you say Federal Reserve. And that the US did not have one until the first Great Depresion. And perhaps more importantly that the Very first Fed President was Bushes great grand father in 1932.
We are still waiting for the trickle down!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAL9000http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c96228b7f8b9aa25cd60000Doug Sun, 19 Sep 2010 10:47:38 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c96228b7f8b9aa25cd60000
The plain truth is that nothing will get fixed as long as we have a debt based, fiat money system owned by private hands.
This system was designed from the beginning to keep humanity in perpetual debt and thus not free.
It is called economic slavery and no matter what the solution the PTB comes up with... this system is doomed to fail as all other debt-based, fiat currencies in private hands always have.
Only when people understand that money IS debt will they start to find real solutions like state owned banking (as in North Dakota) and 100% reserve requirements for commercial banks. Then you can once again have real money that serves mankind rather that mankind serving the bankers.
See the film "Money as Debt" at google video for a short introduction to reality.
Or, join my show every Sunday night at 8pm Eastern www.MarketToolbox.TVhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c9613d37f8b9ac84b400a00neroSun, 19 Sep 2010 09:44:51 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c9613d37f8b9ac84b400a00
BOTH WARS ARE NOT NECESSARY.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c95e7fa7f8b9a9706f40b00Matt S MillerSun, 19 Sep 2010 06:37:45 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c95e7fa7f8b9a9706f40b00
No one should be talking at all about "cutting taxes" with a 1.2 T deficit. EVERYONE should be talking about cutting wars and spending. 40% of tax receipts feed our military complex 6X that of China.
The GOP sold the "war" thing and it broke us. We forgot about education and infrastructure.... now we're broke thanks to Bush and killed ourselves off just like we did Russia.... we "spent" them to death.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c95c5e27f8b9aab06140100JeffersonSun, 19 Sep 2010 04:12:17 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c95c5e27f8b9aab06140100
All this talk about 1% rich and 25 poor makes me sick. Over here in Europe, the dominant political movement of the recent 50 years has been to transfer money from the "haves" to "have-nots". The only result I can see is that
a) it is virtually impossible in most European countries to become wealthy when you were born poor
b) we are being taxed to death in the name of social justice
c) the "haves" don't really care because they will always find a way to avoid being taxed
The worst effect is that the middle class is being taxed the most, creating a real "firewall" between the underdogs and the big guys (see a) ). From what I see, the only way to improve things is to make the way from "have-nothing" to "have-a-house-and-a-car-and-some-money-on-the-bank-and-a-steady-income-to-further-improve-it" (which is basically what I would call "being wealthy") cheaper. Just add all the taxes that you need to become a millionaire over 3-5 years–it is amazing.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c959c767f8b9ade0c090900ｄａｎｎｙSun, 19 Sep 2010 01:15:33 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c959c767f8b9ade0c090900
Very good analysis.
Please note that we have gone back almost 40 years in terms of housing construction and automobile demand. The two backbone of our economy in the last 50 years.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c95837d7f8b9a667c560d00BlagoSat, 18 Sep 2010 23:29:01 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c95837d7f8b9a667c560d00
Those 1999 and 2005 spikes look like, well, spikes. They were speculative bubbles. This is the new (and old) normal. One caveat: I think there is still a bit of the 2005 housing bubble still around, but stocks are probably cheaper than usual.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c9565a77f8b9add19b70100popculturereferenceSat, 18 Sep 2010 21:21:43 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c9565a77f8b9add19b70100
Are you better off now than you were 12 trillion dollars ago?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c9564c27f8b9a2969710400JonathanSat, 18 Sep 2010 21:17:54 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c9564c27f8b9a2969710400
Almost back to normal eh.
That cute little note about public liabilities not being included seems important in this particular case. The monster in DC is eating 5% of national wealth per year at the current rate, while income and wealth creation either have stagnated or are going down.
At the current rate of destruction, America will lose 50% of its wealth this decade. That's 230 years of progress, vaporized in two decades of assholes at the helm in DC.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c9554327f8b9acd36880e00NickSat, 18 Sep 2010 20:07:14 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c9554327f8b9acd36880e00
These graphs don't show the fact that the net worth inequality in USA has been increasing over time. The top 1% is richer now than before, while the bottom 25% are poorer.
The average net worth doesn't show it. Because the rich are richer now, and their increased net worth brings up the whole average. But the fact is that poverty in USA has increased for a lot of people.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0916/US-adds-3.8-million-more-to-ranks-of-the-poor-as-poverty-rate-jumps
The thing is that the rich often don't spend more money on consumer goods and services, when they become richer. Because they already have all the things and pleasures they desire. While the poor do spend more money when they become better off. Because there are plenty of things and pleasures they'd like to buy. They have a pent up demand for goods and services.
Which means that the increasing net worth inequality is bad for consumer spending and for the economy too. Because consumer spending makes up over 70% of US economy.
Perhaps that's why the unemployment and the poverty in USA is so high, even though the net worth graphs above don't look so bad.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c9546a77f8b9a1e02ca0900TardSat, 18 Sep 2010 19:09:27 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c9546a77f8b9a1e02ca0900
Clearly, NOW is the best time to raise taxes.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c9545e07f8b9acd36780500krypticSat, 18 Sep 2010 19:06:08 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c9545e07f8b9acd36780500
The lost Republican decade strikes again.
Apart from the debt, the two wars (one unnecessary) and the economic destruction, it is almost seem like the past 10 years didn't make a difference.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c9542f97f8b9aff016b0800jimgSat, 18 Sep 2010 18:53:45 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c9542f97f8b9aff016b0800
Ya better get ready for the NEW NORMAL
Like nothing you have ever seen (or imagined) before....http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c953dc97f8b9aac28be0600CSRealistSat, 18 Sep 2010 18:31:32 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4c953dc97f8b9aac28be0600
This reads like good news, relative to doom and gloom-ists.
However, the psychology of the country - between fear and apathy - makes "back to normal" worse than breaking even. Double Dip, even.